Aberdeen teacher complaining about being blocked from teaching LGBT+ to 7 year olds

[poodlemum01]

A primary teacher residing in stonehaven, and seemingly registered with aberdeen council, has posted on the 'scottish primary teaching' facebook group her anger at not being allowed to deliver LGBT+ lessons to her P4 class (which in Scotland will be ages 7-8). She gets support in the comments from John Summers Campbell - the drag queen teacher. Did he not have some kind of legal action / bad press against him at some point? My mind vaguely recalls a tribunal or something....
I'm sure her employer will be delighted at her using her real name, having trans flags on her personal profile, publicly critising them, making the school and SLT pretty much identifiable, allowing other teachers to slag them off and call them bigots. Any Aberdeen residents on this thread?

Thank you for your response. I don't think I made any assumptions about your understanding of "education, safeguarding, schools or children’s development".

Your first two posts on the thread (and Mumsnet) were:

"Why are people lurking on a private primary school teachers page looking for things to be outraged about"?

"It’s interesting that simply acknowledging LGBT people exist is described as “promoting an agenda”, while teaching children that only heterosexual and cisgender people exist is apparently considered neutral"

In the light of this, I was interested in your seeming lack of knowledge of how transactivist "beliefs " or queer theory have been used in schools - especially inappropriately in primary schools with the youngest of children.

So harmful has this been that finally the DfE have stated that no children must be taught that gender identity is a fact. The new Sex Relationship Health Ed guidelines insist on age appropriate education for primary schools with full parental consultation over the curriculum and resources. The issues of gender non conforming children have been framed as part of the KCSIE statutory guidelines with issues such as mixed sex undressing being banned. This government would never have done this if the evidence of harm to the young wasn't so clear.

There's a massive difference between teaching children about acceptance, different groups in society, mutual respect, different families etc as opposed to gaslighting them that men are women when they say they are. Or that girls are not entitled to boundaries if a male wants access to them when they undress. Or that the teenage boys can take places, medals and awards from girls sport and that's acceptable.

Schools are not in existence for queer theorists to promote their niche ideas to children. All sorts of things are discussed in the media, debated by politicians etc. Not all of them are appropriate for primary children to be taught about.

A quick search for threads on Mumsnet about the Proud Trust, LGBT Youth Scotland, Surrey Pride or general safeguarding threads on this board are very useful for showcasing how extreme transactivists have been using schools and children in recent years - to the detriment of children's safety.

But children don’t usually know what’s in other people’s trousers, so that’s not how they’re identifying people in everyday life anyway. My son doesn’t know whether the man serving him in a shop, his football coach, or a teacher has a penis or not.

How do you know he doesn't, he has one himself, he may well assume everyone has one. Of course he'd be wrong in that, he will eventual learn that some people don't and those people are called girls/women. That's what childhood is about learning things about the people and the world around.
It's a lot easier to learn life's lesson's when they stay constant and don't changed all the time to fit the whims of individuals.

Yes, as I'd put in my update, which I then updated because I found a different para, it used to be very clear that one could withdraw children from 'sex ed' classes. But this update from last year/Feb has confused me a bit. I'm not quite sure what the answer is, now.

Hmmm. TIE says:

https://tie.scot/news/rshp-guidance/

'Withdrawal applies only to specific sexual health elements of RSHP – not to wider learning about relationships, equality, or prejudice-based bullying'
...
'Parents and carers may request withdrawal only from the sexual health elements of RSHP learning. Withdrawal does not apply to wider learning about relationships, respect, equality, human rights or prejudice-based bullying.
For example, withdrawal would not apply to learning about friendships, diverse families, marriage or civil partnership, or tackling homophobia, misogyny, or racism. It may be accommodated for specific planned sexual health content, such as learning about reproduction or sexual intercourse. Schools are expected to ensure that any decisions relating to withdrawal are informed and proportionate.
Schools have legal duties under the Equality Act 2010 and a responsibility to deliver a curriculum that reflects society and prepares young people for life in modern Scotland. Learning about different families, cultures, religions, and protected characteristics is part of delivering a factual education for all learners.'

TIE may think they've won a battle here. I'm not quite convinced that a determined insistence that schools/Scotgov can and will do whatever the fuck they want despite what the electorate want is going to go well for them in the long run.

Hahaha!

'A note on disinformation
RSHP education (and broader anti-prejudice education) is sometimes the subject of disinformation or sensationalism, particularly on social media.
At times, political groups and online actors have presented this learning as controversial or have implied hidden agendas, using emotive language designed to provoke concern or outrage. Such assertions misunderstand both the purpose and the content of RSHP education.
RSHP education is not delivered in isolation – it sits within a broader child protection and rights-based education framework. Learning content is planned in alignment with statutory guidance to ensure it is age-appropriate and factual, with progression learning as children and young people mature, supporting their safety and wellbeing.'

Pursed lip defensiveness is not a good look, TIE. 😂

I think you’re conflating several different issues here.

Firstly, the guidance you’re referring to is from the Department for Education in England. Education is devolved and Scottish schools operate within a different policy framework, so I’m not sure it’s particularly relevant to my experience working in Scotland.

Secondly, you’ve made a number of claims about what has supposedly been happening in schools, but I have never personally witnessed children being “gaslit”, taught that they must deny biological reality, or told that girls are not entitled to boundaries. Those are serious allegations, but they don’t reflect my experience of Scottish education.

Thirdly, I don’t think acknowledging that LGBT people exist is the same thing as teaching “queer theory”. Children encounter LGBT people in their families, communities, television programmes and wider society. Answering questions about that reality is not the same as promoting a political ideology.

Finally, I think it is worth recognising that gender identity is a genuinely contested issue in society. Reasonable people disagree about aspects of it. That is precisely why discussions about these topics need to be age-appropriate, balanced and thoughtful, rather than reduced to claims that schools are either “promoting an agenda” or “erasing” certain groups of people.

Got to separate LGB from the T+. It was a super clever move to lump it together with something accepted and utterly nothing to do with it. But for education purposes it needs to be separated. One group is sexuality. The other is grouping by cultural stereotypes. The NHS guidance on whether someone may be transgender included, to paraphrase 'if you dont enjoy sports or activities usually enjoyed by your birth sex...' That was the lightbulb moment for me.

Lumping them together should never have happened.

Given that it's a "genuinely contested issue"in society, shouldn't it be taught as such?

I don't think you can argue that the focus of lessons on this is very far indeed from

Lesson objective: Understand the strengths and weaknesses of the respective arguments for and against the concept of gender identity and the corresponding replacement of "sex" with "gender" in a variety of social contexts.

or

Lesson objective: Recognise that some children identify as trans and acknowledge the corresponding existence of de-transitioners.

Looked at this way, surely you can see that the universally popular "Genderbread Man" above is far from the "balance" that you claim is needed here?

ETA: There's nothing remotely dodgy in my "under review" post above, btw - just a link to a podcast featuring someone who has researched exactly the topic under discussion: the impact of telling kids that "That child over there (even in individual, isolated contexts) should be called 'she', not 'he'"), as well as a wider reading recommendation on this issue!

Right. Girls I know have been taught that 'some girls dont get periods'. And that this, rather than being an indication of potential medical issues, is something to be celebrated.

I have personally had to unteach this.

Most parents will not even be aware it was taught.

I teach my children what they need to know, and we communicate well. Its not my kids who will suffer - it's the vulnerable ones, as ever.

All this has done is undermine childrens' faith in teachers and the education system, and spread potentially dangerous misinformation.

Yet conflation is evident in your own post here, too.

...I don’t think acknowledging that LGBT people exist is the same thing as teaching “queer theory”.

No one here is discussing the LGB. The focus is exclusively on the infinitely more complex T.

Equally, no one is arguing that a group of people "don't exist"! This is activist language in its hyperbolic absurdity. The debate is what T constitutes, and its societal and political implications.

I think the uncritical use of sloganic language like the above is why some posters may be a little suspicious of your motivations - and why I think you may find Schrier's book (if my post ever makes it through!) helpful in confirming or challenging your views in this area.

ETA: I recognise that I used the "exist" line in my hypothetical "balanced" lesson objective above - it was intended as an ironic reflection of what's actually tending to be taught, and the wording used to do so.

Yes. I've shared on here a few times my own difficulties explaining to a small group of kids that the oppression of women in Afghanistan has nothing to do with how those women identify.

Genuine bemusement and - tellingly - a tangible, stumbling fear (some literally stammered and repeatedly corrected themselves, messing up their language even further in so doing) of speaking openly about this shocking revelation was immediately evident. I kid you 100% not.

And - no exaggeration intended here, either - it shook me to my core that teaching our kids to call young Liam a girl had led so rapidly and absolutely to the total loss of their ability to unambiguously and confidently name and discuss an oppressed demographic.

I teach in SEN. Some of our children are having the the big RSE lesson next week.
They absolutely do need to know basic sex education, like any other child, in fact more than most (cos they actually are vulnerable)
And of course about the LGB aspect, no one would ever have an issue with that. Who on earth would? One of the children has 2 mums, so of course this has raised questions, but just in general life around them, they are as exposed to gay relationships etc on TV, films etc as the rest of us. It's not something that needs labouring because there are lots of openly gay people around in life for them to encounter, and life is all the richer for it.

But then if it becomes about the TQ for my children, I can tell you that it is wholly inappropriate. We have spent years with some (most) of these children ensuring they exercise their bodily autonomy, that they understand once they have reached a certain age, that they would use separate toilets.
Trying to teach them what is inappropriate (however benign) is vital for my children.
They need to know what is truth and what isn't.
About their own bodies and other people's.
Because I know some of the them having the talk probably currently know very, very little about sex. They haven't spent lots of time in a massive junior playground, full of kids with siblings telling them all sorts.
So - they'll have the reproductive side of the talk, and then at some point, would be delivered the TQ aspect.
If I have to explain why this would be catastrophic for some of our children, I don't think you're strong enough to be in this debate.
It would turn their sense of reality on its head and it would make them vulnerable. To put it mildly.

I feel really fucking upset at the thought of the turmoil this would cause some of them.

I'm sure someone will jump in with " well, you make it appropriate for their ability"
No - if the TQ was a perfectly normal part of life, like LGB, then our children need to know about it too, don't they? If it's such an innate thing and a wonderful thing to celebrate of course they should be taught about it. Not very inclusive to not teach them about it is it?

I'm going to stop now because I need to drink this glass of wine.
Sorry for the long, rambly post.

No, the NHS guidance does not say that

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria-and-incongruence/

I'm aware that the DfE guidance doesn't cover schools in Scotland. Just highlighting how a responsible government acts when the harm that's done to children is so clearly evidenced.

Numerous parents talk in despair about the nonsense that's taught to children in Scottish schools - there's even a parent upthread sharing their story (at 17.30). But given your lack of awareness of the harm that's happening to girls (and boys) in schools, here's a recent court case taken by a parent. This case demonstrates how girls are being taught that they're not entitled to boundaries from the opposite sex when toileting and for many young girls, learning to deal with their first periods. The council were found guilty of indirect sex discrimination and all schools must reinstate sibgle sex toilets.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgzgldvv47o

The school in the case claimed in their defence that they were following "council guidelines". Which of course highlights the malign influence of organisations like LGBTYS. I'm not being anti Scottish - England also have groups of unsuitable adults seeking to remove children's boundaries and impose mixed sex toilets and changing rooms in schools. Even the CPS (of all organisations!) tried writing guidelines for schools wedging men and boys into girl's changing rooms etc but had to withdraw it rather than face the humiliation of a judicial review.

Below is a link to the most recent allegations against LGBTYS. The paedophile cases are now through the courts and some of the perpetrators jailed I believe.

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/boy-15-groomed-sex-lgbt-youth-scotland-nhrmgss9c:

https://archive.ph/L5LYa

It's maybe worth reflecting that when you say 'Children encounter LGBT people in their families, communities, television programmes and wider society" you seem to have little insight about your audience?
Had you read a bit before arriving to scold women for speaking about this incident in the Scottish school, you would see that many of us are LGB and even T. We're parents, teachers, work in social work, safeguarding and all the rest. We don't all agree but what does seem to unite us is an awareness of the importance of safeguarding and children's rights to an ethical education where they can access single sex spaces, sport along with a balanced, child centred education.

Children are generally quite capable of understanding that people can be described in different ways without their whole framework for understanding the world collapsing.

That is quite a minimising way of describing it though. If trusted adults are telling a child with eyes who has been able to discern male and female from birth that this male person who is objectively male but must be treated as if they were not male then that presents all sorts of problems for that child.

If we described this more honestly and schools said ‘we’ve got these teachers with mental health problems and we need the children to accommodate those by pretending they believe the opposite to what they know to be objectively true but if they don’t the teacher may get sad or angry’ it might be quite a hard sell to the parents.

I think there may be some misunderstanding here, because a lot of the issues you’ve raised aren’t positions I’ve expressed.
I haven’t commented on the Scottish toilet case, mixed-sex changing rooms, LGBT Youth Scotland, or the court judgments you’ve referenced. Nor have I suggested that concerns about safeguarding, parental involvement, children’s rights, or single-sex spaces should be dismissed. These are clearly matters that many people feel strongly about and I appreciate that there are differing views.

My original point was much narrower: children encounter LGBT people in their families, communities and wider society, and it isn’t unreasonable that questions about these topics arise. Acknowledging that reality is not the same thing as endorsing every policy, guidance document or activist position associated with the wider debate.

You also seem to be making a number of assumptions about my background and views. I actually do work with vulnerable children and safeguarding issues, and I don’t regard myself as blind to the complexities or disagreements that exist in this area. Being broadly supportive of trans people does not mean I automatically support every policy or practice that has been proposed in their name.

I’m not really here to scold anyone or tell people what they should think. I’ve been trying to understand why people hold the views they do, even where I disagree with them. I think that’s a more productive starting point than assuming bad faith or assigning positions that haven’t been stated.

Thank you for sharing those links and expressing your position so eloquently. I feel like I understand differing positions in the debate a lot better, which can only be a positive thing. I don’t want to leave anyone with the impression that I am a trans-activist, because I’m definitely not. Probably just a lot more trans positive than the majority of people commenting on this thread :) have A lovely evening.

Yes, it was updated a couple of weeks ago to say this utterly uninformative nonsense. It reads like the lawyers may have got involved. About time too.

In previous iterations of NHS information there has been all sorts of ridiculous stereotype based blather. Because that’s what the whole ideology relies on.

Signs of gender dysphoria and incongruence
The main sign of gender dysphoria and incongruence is feeling your gender identity is different to the sex you were registered at birth.
You may want to live and be treated as a different gender, or feel your body or parts of your body do not match who you feel you are.
These feelings can make it hard to enjoy everyday life and may affect your mental health. For example, you may feel depressed or anxious, or feel like self-harming.

'Page last reviewed: 14 May 2026 '

At one point, the NHS website stated boldly and entirely erroneously, that puberty blockers are reversible.

It has since been changed.

It's also just not straightforwardly the case - child development is so complex. As my post above is still pending review, I'll just say here it included a link to the genderbread person (google - he's everywhere) and a recommendation to listen to the (free) Kara Dansky "Woman's Hour" podcast episode with Amy Sousa, discussing child development in precisely this context, examining how it does very significantly impact (note, not to the point of total "collapse" - a strawman, that bit) "their whole framework for understanding the world". My other reference in the mysteriously inappropriate post was Abigail Shrier's Irreversible Damage - meticulously researched and shortlisted for the Orwell Prize - on the impact of this ideology (note: not of "acknowledging the existence of trans people" etc., but rather the approach taken, in character and degree, towards doing this) in schools on children's processing and wellbeing.

As this is a thread about primary children I'll just leave here my often quoted piece from a clinical psychologist about the harm that's done to children by pretending that they're really the opposite sex.

https://www.transgendertrend.com/childhood-social-transition/

Pombear, could I gently suggest that bringing in a new piece of evidence to support someone's point of view on a hugely complex issue may not necessarily equate to attributing to you views you don't have, or misunderstanding your views as stated. It may do precisely this, of course (I'm not reading this thread as carefully as I usually do, I admit)... but you say yourself that "a more productive starting point" is "trying to understand" rather than "assuming". Perhaps it could be helpful to try to see why some posters may, themselves, see these links and references and details as relevant to your posts.

We're all coming at this from different places, and it does make for a difficult discussion, though - this I recognise! For example, to me, your phrase "trans positive" is confusing. Do you mean "trans: the people"? I'm assuming not - "gay positive" or "people-of-colour positive" for example, could feel a bit patronising and just doesn't, really... work - one doesn't have a "positive" attitude to an oppressed demographic so much as just (you'd hope) an absence of prejudice and the fairly indifferent neutrality that signifies such an absence. In which case, do you mean "trans the ideology"? If so, this is really complex and multi-faceted and you seem to acknowledge yourself that aspects of it are problematic.

FYI, for my part, I'd say I'm not trans positive in either sense. Re: #1, the people, the problem is that I don't find the current conception of "trans" as a single "type" remotely convincing - I simply can't see what a middle-aged male transexual, a teen girl claiming a trans identity and a cross-dresser have in common, and find the indiscriminate grouping of these (not to mention the lumping in of eg. two-spirit and fa'afafine by people who don't seem to have read anything about, or by them) detrimental to many or all of these demographics. Re: #2, the ideology, I think it's enabling a litany of human rights abuses and, again, measurably damaging to the most vulnerable among the very group it purports to speak for.

Anyway, the point is, there's so much scope for niggles like this in such a sensitive topic, but the bigger picture remains fascinating! Let's engage with the niggles (as I try to with your "trans positive" phrase, above)! 😊

I’m going to reply to both of your posts here and then I’ll likely leave it for tonight.

I actually agree with some of what you’re saying, particularly that child development is complex and that we should be willing to examine the impact of how these topics are presented to children. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable discussion to have.

Where I differ is that I don’t view being trans as a mental health problem, nor do I see this as simply asking children to participate in a delusion. For me, the reality is that trans people exist, children will encounter trans people in society, and questions about sex and gender are not going away. The challenge is therefore not whether we acknowledge that reality, but how we do so in a way that is age-appropriate, evidence-based, and respectful of all children involved.

I think we sometimes underestimate children’s ability to understand complexity. They regularly learn that people can be described in different ways in different contexts without their understanding of the world collapsing. That doesn’t mean there are no developmental considerations, but it does mean the conversation is perhaps more nuanced than either “this is harmless” or “this is deeply damaging”. For every perspective, there’s an opposing one. For every bit of research that says it’s deeply damaging, there will be a counter argument.

I’m always interested in child development research, so I will have a look at the sources you’ve mentioned. I try to read across perspectives, including those I don’t necessarily agree with, because I think that’s the only way to properly understand a debate. My concern is less with the existence of discussion and more with the tendency for people on all sides to approach these issues with absolute certainty when the evidence and the lived experiences involved are often much more complex.

Ultimately, I think we need to find a way through this that protects and supports all children—trans children, gender non-conforming children, and children who simply have questions about the world around them. Perhaps that’s naive of me, but that’s for me to hold. Thank you for the recommendations and the debate, there’s been a lot for me to consider today and to challenge my way of thinking. I really do try to understand where you are coming from and I apologise if I’ve been dismissive of your views at any point - that’s not my intention.

Good point, Catiette.

'Trans positive' is a phrase we dont have an equivalent for across other demographics, isnt it?